New Tory Leader

[Herman 9,842]

Where's a dead sheep when you need one? 

[Van wink 2,994]

6 hours ago, KernowCanary said:

It’s the beginning of the end for him. Maggie Thatcher had a similar outcome, but her cabinet still pressured her into leaving weeks later.

There is nobody in this cabinet with the balls 

[TheGunnShow 6,029]

14 minutes ago, Van wink said:

There is nobody in this cabinet with the balls 

Exactly, back then you had the likes of Heseltine and Portillo knocking around.

[A Load of Squit 5,224]

Appalling, we shouldn't be like this. 

 

https://news.sky.com/story/the-food-bank-that-ran-out-of-food-because-people-can-no-longer-afford-to-donate-12628996

The food bank that ran out of food - because people can no longer afford to donate

[Capt. Pants 4,300]

14 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Exactly, back then you had the likes of Heseltine and Portillo knocking around.

It will need a big hitter to come forward and no-one has the balls.

I'm surprised he got as much support as he did really. I suspect Boris would still beat Starmer in a General Election so the Torys are not that worried enough it would seem.

We still don't have a forceful party in Opposition to drive change; Starmer isn't the man to convince the electorate I'm afraid.

[Van wink 2,994]

41 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

Appalling, we shouldn't be like this. 

 

https://news.sky.com/story/the-food-bank-that-ran-out-of-food-because-people-can-no-longer-afford-to-donate-12628996

The food bank that ran out of food - because people can no longer afford to donate

Only five loaves left, JC.

[horsefly 4,318]

2 hours ago, Herman said:

Where's a dead sheep when you need one? 

It's in Rees-Mogg's bedroom. Trust me, you don't want any more detail than that.

[horsefly 4,318]

1 hour ago, Capt. Pants said:

I suspect Boris would still beat Starmer in a General Election so the Torys are not that worried enough it would seem.

We still don't have a forceful party in Opposition to drive change; Starmer isn't the man to convince the electorate I'm afraid.

Perhaps you should take a look at the polls; both for preferred leader, and preferred party. You could start with the Wakefield by-election polls that put Labour 20 points ahead. 148 Tory MPs wanted Johnson gone, and 70% of the public believe he is a liar who should resign. He's a busted flush, and will be long gone before the next election.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/conservative-association-members-won-t-vote-for-boris-johnson-in-crunch-tiverton-and-honiton-by-election/ar-AAY8Y5c?bk=1&bk=1&ocid=msedgntp&cvid=b7dd76f4a47d4f348a3e7cf55dab70e4

Edited June 7, 2022 by horsefly

[crispeduk 282]

3 hours ago, Herman said:

Where's a dead sheep when you need one? 

Brilliant !!!!

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

32 is the new "decisive".

[Herman 9,842]

Blistering from Rory Stewart.

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/rory-stewart-anybody-would-be-better-pm-than-shoddy-boris-johnson/

[Daz Sparks 1,198]

15 minutes ago, Herman said:

Blistering from Rory Stewart.

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/rory-stewart-anybody-would-be-better-pm-than-shoddy-boris-johnson/

Not wrong though, is he?

Is there anyone on here that would like to proffer an alternative opinion?

[Creative Midfielder 2,003]

10 minutes ago, Herman said:

Blistering from Rory Stewart.

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/rory-stewart-anybody-would-be-better-pm-than-shoddy-boris-johnson/

One of the few Tories worth listening to - great shame he didn't win the race to take over from TM.

Of course it was never likely that he would but he was the only candidate for PM who would have tried to do his best in the national interest rather than what was best in the short term interest for the Tory party, or in Johnson's case what was best for his own career/ego.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

17 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

One of the few Tories worth listening to - great shame he didn't win the race to take over from TM.

Of course it was never likely that he would but he was the only candidate for PM who would have tried to do his best in the national interest rather than what was best in the short term interest for the Tory party, or in Johnson's case what was best for his own career/ego.

I must admit, listening to him, he seemed less of a Tory, more of a LibDem. He did seem to be more of a caring type than ambitious.

[Creative Midfielder 2,003]

27 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

I must admit, listening to him, he seemed less of a Tory, more of a LibDem. He did seem to be more of a caring type than ambitious.

I'd say so, and very bright as well which sets him apart from the set of utter dimwits currently running the country.

Bit of throwback really to the days when the Tory party did have quite a few MPs who did genuinely believe that being an MP was a form of public service and also understood they were at Westminister to govern in the national interest rather than on a purely partisan basis.

But those days are long gone I'm afraid, now we've just got a set of pitiful scumbags posing as a government but without the intellect, principles and life experience to make even a half-assed go of it.

 

Edited June 7, 2022 by Creative Midfielder

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

Always entertaining to watch you chaps get worked up to such levels of excitement. Now as to Boris, I stated long ago on here that I wanted him gone, so the result of the leadership ballot was pleasing but not quite enough to turf him out immediately, but it does look like a matter of time.

Of course, I want Boris out for reasons different to you, the main one being that he isn't a Conservative and he doesn't follow Conservative policies. An extra special reason for wanting him out is to get rid of that cuckoo-in-the-nest wife of his with all her nonsense climate change and zero carbon guff which will bankrupt the country if it ever comes to pass.

The problem is, it isn't clear which group of Tories will seize control of the party - something no one is really talking about but is actually the most important issue today - whether the True Blue Tories can take control of the leadership and get post-brexit issues back on track, returning focus back onto economic growth through a low taxation economy that delivers on promises to the Red Wall, or whether the Remain faction takes control and starts reversing all the hard-fought victories that the people voted for in the last Referendum, while continuing to be a high tax, Statist economy that no one except the Metropolitians want.

We shall see how it plays out.

[Herman 9,842]

43 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

I must admit, listening to him, he seemed less of a Tory, more of a LibDem. He did seem to be more of a caring type than ambitious.

You have to look at his voting record to see that he is a true tory. As CM says he is very bright and actually thinks about things but he will vote for stuff that would make most of us balk. I'd still rather him than any of halfwits that do populate the tory party though.

[sonyc 5,541]

8 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

Always entertaining to watch you chaps get worked up to such levels of excitement. Now as to Boris, I stated long ago on here that I wanted him gone, so the result of the leadership ballot was pleasing but not quite enough to turf him out immediately, but it does look like a matter of time.

Of course, I want Boris out for reasons different to you, the main one being that he isn't a Conservative and he doesn't follow Conservative policies. An extra special reason for wanting him out is to get rid of that cuckoo-in-the-nest wife of his with all her nonsense climate change and zero carbon guff which will bankrupt the country if it ever comes to pass.

The problem is, it isn't clear which group of Tories will seize control of the party - something no one is really talking about but is actually the most important issue today - whether the True Blue Tories can take control of the leadership and get post-brexit issues back on track, returning focus back onto economic growth through a low taxation economy that delivers on promises to the Red Wall, or whether the Remain faction takes control and starts reversing all the hard-fought victories that the people voted for in the last Referendum, while continuing to be a high tax, Statist economy that no one except the Metropolitians want.

We shall see how it plays out.

Trouble is that "true blue Tories" and Brexit don't really go hand in hand do they? Secondly, there has been no delivery in over 2 years regarding levelling up has there? Just words about drawing a line and moving on. Just words. Thirdly, we have the highest taxes in decades?

Your problem (well, your party's) is that the Tory Party is being trashed by Johnson. Many values have gone out of the window. What does this present lot really stand for? It is not that Johnson isn't a Conservative but he stands for just himself.

What kind of authority is there now? 211 of 650 MPs support Johnson and just over a half of those 211 are on the pay roll. 

Something rotten set in about 2 years ago and has got worse. It's all moribund.

In the cold morning light wouldn't you agree? It's a right mess. Johnson today even had to ask his cabinet to come up with ideas. As many people have said Johnson knows a lot about classics and his literature but in terms of ideas he has very few. Save the idea of himself. That's his forte. 2 years of this shape shifting liar and where are we? He has corrupted your party badly. Voters will think of Johnson's character. Once you don't like someone's character you rarely change your mind.

 

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

6 minutes ago, sonyc said:

Trouble is that "true blue Tories" and Brexit don't really go hand in hand do they? Secondly, there has been no delivery in over 2 years regarding levelling up has there? Just words about drawing a line and moving on. Just words. Thirdly, we have the highest taxes in decades?

Your problem (well, your party's) is that the Tory Party is being trashed by Johnson. Many values have gone out of the window. What does this present lot really stand for? It is not that Johnson isn't a Conservative but he stands for just himself.

What kind of authority is there now? 211 of 650 MPs support Johnson and just over a half of those 211 are on the pay roll. 

Something rotten set in about 2 years ago and has got worse. It's all moribund.

In the cold morning light wouldn't you agree? It's a right mess. Johnson today even had to ask his cabinet to come up with ideas. As many people have said Johnson knows a lot about classics and his literature but in terms of ideas he has very few. Save the idea of himself. That's his forte. 2 years of this shape shifting liar and where are we? He has corrupted your party badly. Voters will think of Johnson's character. Once you don't like someone's character you rarely change your mind.

 

Your first few paragraphs explain fairly enough why he should go. Though I'm interested in why you think True Blue Tories and Brexit don't go together.

The rot sank in when he partnered with Carrie Johnson. Everything went downhill very quickly after that. He lost Cummings and other advisors and her mates moved into the space created. Boris's big problem has always been he lets his d!ck do most of the thinking.

[horsefly 4,318]

40 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

The problem is, it isn't clear which group of Tories will seize control of the party - something no one is really talking about but is actually the most important issue today - whether the True Blue Tories can take control of the leadership and get post-brexit issues back on track, returning focus back onto economic growth through a low taxation economy that delivers on promises to the Red Wall, or whether the Remain faction takes control and starts reversing all the hard-fought victories that the people voted for in the last Referendum, while continuing to be a high tax, Statist economy that no one except the Metropolitians want.

Ten out of ten for accurately repeating the same old tired ERG slogans. Zero out of ten for a complete failure to provide any sort of content to those vacuous words. 

[sonyc 5,541]

12 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

Your first few paragraphs explain fairly enough why he should go. Though I'm interested in why you think True Blue Tories and Brexit don't go together.

The rot sank in when he partnered with Carrie Johnson. Everything went downhill very quickly after that. He lost Cummings and other advisors and her mates moved into the space created. Boris's big problem has always been he lets his d!ck do most of the thinking.

I've posted before he is a classic puer aeturnus. Really worth looking up the characteristics if you're ever interested RTB. A Jungian archetype reference but so valid. That's why I believe when he crashes and comes down to earth it will be dramatic.

On your other point my opinion is just that the Tory Party of the Johnson leadership chose to align themselves to UKIP and was heavily influenced by those ERG types. More traditional 'true blue' Tories wanted closer alignment with the EU (even if they were Brexit supporters). Thatcher would have been a remainer of course. Yet, she would have batted hard for the UK and never have left the single market. I don't wish to get into a Brexit debate because you'll know my views already. Yet......Johnson continues to trash the very agreement he negotiated, signed off and then  trumpeted. And he did that so he could say he got it done. Except, reality has hit home now. It continues to. And now he backtracks. It isn't done.

He really has damaged our country and his party. The former is very sad. Anyone, anyone at all would be an improvement. But 211 voted for this person to continue! To actually keep him in a position of power. Just think of those 200 plus.  Incredible. They have not been patriotic or thinking of what's best for the country.

Edited June 7, 2022 by sonyc

[TheGunnShow 6,029]

52 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

I'd say so, and very bright as well which sets him apart from the set of utter dimwits currently running the country.

Bit of throwback really to the days when the Tory party did have quite a few MPs who did genuinely believe that being an MP was a form of public service and also understood they were at Westminister to govern in the national interest rather than on a purely partisan basis.

But those days are long gone I'm afraid, now we've just got a set of pitiful scumbags posing as a government but without the intellect, principles and life experience to make even a half-assed go of it.

 

The difference is this: under the likes of Thatcher and such, they were tax cutters who were keen on minimising state impact on people, and that was their "gift", or indeed what was useful to working class voters.

The Tory Party under Johnson is the party of financial hucksters.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,605]

22 hours ago, Tetteys Jig said:

You just know they’ll squirm their way back and manipulate the British public into voting them in again in 2024. We get the government we deserve. Can see a mass increase in the far right conspiracies ahead of that and the US election.

Not if the f*ing Labour party and other opposition parties get their a**e in gear and actually reform the electoral system to a proportional system like full PR or STV, in which case the Conservatives would never have a majority government again unless over 50% of the population did actually vote Conservative. 

To be honest, that's why I basically hate Labour more than I hate the Conservatives. Conservatives wanting to stick with a system that wins them majorities all of the time makes sense; Labour supporting a system where they hardly ever win and any actual positive changes they make are reversed as soon as the Conservatives are in is just utterly moronic. 

Edited June 7, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[littleyellowbirdie 2,605]

2 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

Always entertaining to watch you chaps get worked up to such levels of excitement. Now as to Boris, I stated long ago on here that I wanted him gone, so the result of the leadership ballot was pleasing but not quite enough to turf him out immediately, but it does look like a matter of time.

Of course, I want Boris out for reasons different to you, the main one being that he isn't a Conservative and he doesn't follow Conservative policies. An extra special reason for wanting him out is to get rid of that cuckoo-in-the-nest wife of his with all her nonsense climate change and zero carbon guff which will bankrupt the country if it ever comes to pass.

The problem is, it isn't clear which group of Tories will seize control of the party - something no one is really talking about but is actually the most important issue today - whether the True Blue Tories can take control of the leadership and get post-brexit issues back on track, returning focus back onto economic growth through a low taxation economy that delivers on promises to the Red Wall, or whether the Remain faction takes control and starts reversing all the hard-fought victories that the people voted for in the last Referendum, while continuing to be a high tax, Statist economy that no one except the Metropolitians want.

We shall see how it plays out.

You're absolutely right that Boris Johnson is not a Conservative, and actually that's why he has been so popular. Aside from the indefensible dishonesty, he would be far better placed in Tony Blair's Labour with his instinctive leaning towards big infrastructure projects to boost the economy. 

The Tories are utterly screwed because Johnson's brand is irreparably tarnished, but the old school small state conservativism simply has no place in a modern world where the human race has surpassed its sustainable limit on the planet, people need to think about conserving resources to stop us actually ceasing to exist, but also finding ways to look after a growing elderlly population with a smaller younger population that allows everyone the best quality of life, which inevitably will mean more automisation and more state support. 

Edit: Actually, the indefensible dishonesty might qualify Boris Johnson very well for Tony Blair's Labour. 

Edited June 7, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[TheGunnShow 6,029]

5 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

You're absolutely right that Boris Johnson is not a Conservative, and actually that's why he has been so popular. Aside from the indefensible dishonesty, he would be far better placed in Tony Blair's Labour with his instinctive leaning towards big infrastructure projects to boost the economy. 

The Tories are utterly screwed because Johnson's brand is irreparably tarnished, but the old school small state conservativism simply has no place in a modern world where the human race has surpassed its sustainable limit on the planet, people need to think about conserving resources to stop us actually ceasing to exist, but also finding ways to look after a growing elderlly population with a smaller younger population that allows everyone the best quality of life, which inevitably will mean more automisation and more state support. 

Re. the bit in bold, IIRC Denmark has increased the pension age to 72. It would probably be electoral suicide for any party suggesting that here. But it does show nicely how the can has been kicked down the road and no action was taken.

Essentially they'll have to increase the hours in the working week, or increase the age at which pensions are issued. Personally, I am fortunate in that I work in a profession that is not physically arduous and as long as my faculties are sharp, I can happily do it until the day I drop dead. And that will be my aim. A pension fund will be there as an extra income source.

I'd also say that whilst laissez-faire capitalism is usually a driver for sound economic performance, resulting income inequalities are its weakness over time. Most importantly, we need to kill off this odd perversion that a "meritocracy" is a good way for a society to function. It is not. And Sir Michael Young, the man who ultimately put this word into public awareness, knew that all along when he coined it as a dystopia.

Edited June 7, 2022 by TheGunnShow

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

6 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Re. the bit in bold, IIRC Denmark has increased the pension age to 72. It would probably be electoral suicide for any party suggesting that here. But it does show nicely how the can has been kicked down the road and no action was taken.

Essentially they'll have to increase the hours in the working week, or increase the age at which pensions are issued. Personally, I am fortunate in that I work in a profession that is not physically arduous and as long as my faculties are sharp, I can happily do it until the day I drop dead. And that will be my aim. A pension fund will be there as an extra income source.

I'd also say that whilst laissez-faire capitalism is usually a driver for sound economic performance, resulting income inequalities are its weakness over time. Most importantly, we need to kill off this odd perversion that a "meritocracy" is a good way for a society to function. It is not. And Sir Michael Young, the man who ultimately put this word into public awareness, knew that all along when he coined it as a dystopia.

You are just quoting future policies that neatly fit into the present system. Have you never thought changing the system may not be a risk? May not cause calamity? 

For example, the job market is realising that the cleaner is equally as important and is now offering remuneration that may just start to drive a higher wage economy.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,605]

11 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

 Most importantly, we need to kill off this odd perversion that a "meritocracy" is a good way for a society to function. It is not. And Sir Michael Young, the man who ultimately put this word into public awareness, knew that all along when he coined it as a dystopia.

Very interested in this comment. What's the thinking behind it?

[TheGunnShow 6,029]

2 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Very interested in this comment. What's the thinking behind it?

The word "meritocracy" first came into common usage via Sir Michael Young's 1958 book The Rise of the Meritocracy. He described it as a dystopian vision where people who were perceived as having greater merit ended up taking all the top positions, but those seen as lacking it were exposed to neglect/shame even if it was through no fault of their own.

Unfortunately, the meaning of the word got reversed and seen as a utopia, ignoring this basic fact. Less than a year before he died, Young wrote this piece for the Guardian showing what had gone wrong with the understanding of the word.

Down with meritocracy | Michael Young | The Guardian

It may be that it cannot be accessed, so I have copy-pased the whole thing anyway in case posters cannot get in. I have also put what I consider the key aspects in bold type.

- - - - - - - - - - - 

 

I have been sadly disappointed by my 1958 book, The Rise of the Meritocracy. I coined a word which has gone into general circulation, especially in the United States, and most recently found a prominent place in the speeches of Mr Blair.

The book was a satire meant to be a warning (which needless to say has not been heeded) against what might happen to Britain between 1958 and the imagined final revolt against the meritocracy in 2033.

 

Much that was predicted has already come about. It is highly unlikely the prime minister has read the book, but he has caught on to the word without realising the dangers of what he is advocating.

Underpinning my argument was a non-controversial historical analysis of what had been happening to society for more than a century before 1958, and most emphatically since the 1870s, when schooling was made compulsory and competitive entry to the civil service became the rule.

Until that time status was generally ascribed by birth. But irrespective of people's birth, status has gradually become more achievable.

It is good sense to appoint individual people to jobs on their merit. It is the opposite when those who are judged to have merit of a particular kind harden into a new social class without room in it for others.

Ability of a conventional kind, which used to be distributed between the classes more or less at random, has become much more highly concentrated by the engine of education.

A social revolution has been accomplished by harnessing schools and universities to the task of sieving people according to education's narrow band of values.

With an amazing battery of certificates and degrees at its disposal, education has put its seal of approval on a minority, and its seal of disapproval on the many who fail to shine from the time they are relegated to the bottom streams at the age of seven or before.

The new class has the means at hand, and largely under its control, by which it reproduces itself.

The more controversial prediction and the warning followed from the historical analysis. I expected that the poor and the disadvantaged would be done down, and in fact they have been. If branded at school they are more vulnerable for later unemployment.

They can easily become demoralised by being looked down on so woundingly by people who have done well for themselves.

It is hard indeed in a society that makes so much of merit to be judged as having none. No underclass has ever been left as morally naked as that.

They have been deprived by educational selection of many of those who would have been their natural leaders, the able spokesmen and spokeswomen from the working class who continued to identify with the class from which they came.

Their leaders were a standing opposition to the rich and the powerful in the never-ending competition in parliament and industry between the haves and the have-nots.

With the coming of the meritocracy, the now leaderless masses were partially disfranchised; as time has gone by, more and more of them have been disengaged, and disaffected to the extent of not even bothering to vote. They no longer have their own people to represent them.

To make the point it is worth comparing the Attlee and Blair cabinets. The two most influential members of the 1945 cabinet were Ernest Bevin, acclaimed as foreign secretary, and Herbert Morrison, acclaimed as lord president of the council and deputy prime minister.

 

Bevin left school at 11 to take a job as a farm boy, and was subsequently a kitchen boy, a grocer's errand boy, a van boy, a tram conductor and a drayman before, at the age of 29, he became active locally in Bristol in the Dock Wharf, Riverside and General Labourers' union.

Herbert Morrison was in many ways an even more significant figure, whose rise to prominence was not so much through the unions as through local government.

His first job was also as an errand boy and assistant in a grocer's shop, from which he moved on to be a junior shop assistant and an early switchboard operator. He later became so influential as leader of the London county council partly because of his previous success as minister of transport in the 1929 Labour government.

He triumphed in the way Livingstone and Kiley hope to do now, by bringing all London's fragmented tube service, buses and trams under one unified management and ownership in his London passenger transport board.

It made London's public transport the best in the world for another 30-40 years and the LPTB was also the model for all the nationalised industries after 1945.

Quite a few other members of the Attlee cabinet, like Bevan and Griffiths (miners both), had similar lowly origins and so were also a source of pride for many ordinary people who could identify with them.

It is a sharp contrast with the Blair cabinet, largely filled as it is with members of the meritocracy.

In the new social environment, the rich and the powerful have been doing mighty well for themselves. They have been freed from the old kinds of criticism from people who had to be listened to. This once helped keep them in check - it has been the opposite under the Blair government.

The business meritocracy is in vogue. If meritocrats believe, as more and more of them are encouraged to, that their advancement comes from their own merits, they can feel they deserve whatever they can get.

They can be insufferably smug, much more so than the people who knew they had achieved advancement not on their own merit but because they were, as somebody's son or daughter, the beneficiaries of nepotism. The newcomers can actually believe they have morality on their side.

So assured have the elite become that there is almost no block on the rewards they arrogate to themselves. The old restraints of the business world have been lifted and, as the book also predicted, all manner of new ways for people to feather their own nests have been invented and exploited.

 

Salaries and fees have shot up. Generous share option schemes have proliferated. Top bonuses and golden handshakes have multiplied.

As a result, general inequality has been becoming more grievous with every year that passes, and without a bleat from the leaders of the party who once spoke up so trenchantly and characteristically for greater equality.

Can anything be done about this more polarised meritocratic society? It would help if Mr Blair would drop the word from his public vocabulary, or at least admit to the downside. It would help still more if he and Mr Brown would mark their distance from the new meritocracy by increasing income taxes on the rich, and also by reviving more powerful local government as a way of involving local people and giving them a training for national politics.

There was also a prediction in the book that wholesale educational selection would be reintroduced, going further even than what we have already. My imaginary author, an ardent apostle of meritocracy, said shortly before the revolution, that "No longer is it so necessary to debase standards by attempting to extend a higher civilisation to the children of the lower classes".

At least the fullness of that can still be avoided. I hope.

[TheGunnShow 6,029]

11 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

You are just quoting future policies that neatly fit into the present system. Have you never thought changing the system may not be a risk? May not cause calamity? 

For example, the job market is realising that the cleaner is equally as important and is now offering remuneration that may just start to drive a higher wage economy.

For how long? If it is sustainable, then it would be a start. If it is only temporary though, then... we're back to where we started.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

7 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

For how long? If it is sustainable, then it would be a start. If it is only temporary though, then... we're back to where we started.

Now its established, nobody is going to work for less. Its just an example of what at one time would be disposable but is now necessary. At the moment shortages of labour are the cause. But if people realise its nothing to be afraid of, just as the introduction of the minimum wage did not cause wholesale redundancies.